Shane, if the shoe were on the other foot, what would you say if a secular college refused to even hire a prof who believed in the Genesis account? From your post I know what you'd say: "Such narrow minded bigots have no business teaching science in an 'open minded, tolerant' university in search of truth. We've 'evolved' past the need for Christian superstitions." In reality your ilk demands a place at the table, then when they reach places of administrative power, close the door on dissenting opinion. Many if not all Ivy League schools started out as Christian seminaries. How many of them now have creationists in their science faculties? Name any secular university that would openly hire a creationist. Would you? What are they/you afraid of?
The fact is Science and Christianity are certainly compatible, as seen in any number of scientists who believed in the Scriptures before Darwin was ever born. Galileo, Newton, Bacon, Kepler, etc. In the latter case the Dutch Reformed Church gave Kepler funding for his astronomical research. Each one had a firm grip on science without ever embracing evolution. What you advocate is not science, but the philosophy(s) of naturalism/evolutionism. So stop special pleading.
22 comments
what would you say if a secular college refused to even hire a prof who believed in the Genesis account?
Academic freedom is academic freedom. It's a shame you don't believe in it.
Name any secular university that would openly hire a creationist.
How about Professor Tom McMullen, hired by Georgia Southern University?
The fact is Science and Christianity are certainly compatible
Indeed they are, but when you start ignoring evidence to fit a pre-determined conclusion, you are no longer a scientist. That's where you and people like Darwin, who thought of training for the priesthood, and Galileo, who was deeply religious, part company.
A creationist might be perfectly capable of teaching some things. Nothign science-related, of course. They wouldn't be not hired because of bigotry, they wouldn't be hired because they don't know the field, just like you wouldn't hire an alleged gourmet chef who insisted that everything went better with garlic and jellybeans.
"The fact is Science and Christianity are certainly compatible"
Just like science and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, science and Buddhism, science and Hinduism, science and eating breakfast, science and wearing pants, and science and taking a shit.
Just because someone can function as a scientist while simultaneously believing in some crazy-ass religious beliefs has nothing to do with science and religion have anything at all to do with each other or whether or not those crazy-ass religious beliefs are actually true.
It's not a problem as long as he keeps his religious beliefs out of the science. As long as he teaches the actual facts, theories and evidence (rather than the crap you make up and try to stick our names on), most won't give a shit what he personally believes.
++"The fact is Science and Christianity are certainly compatible"
That, however, is simply false. The dogma of your religion is demonstrably incorrect on various issues yet refuses to change and is therefore not compatible with science. Just because you are capable of ignoring any portions of science which expose your beliefs as false (while still demanding access to the benefits they provide) does not mean that the two are compatible, just as the ability to pound a three-prong plug into a two-slot electric outlet by smashing it in with a sledge hammer until the casing breaks does not magically make those compatible. All it gains you a is a severe shock and possibly a house fire. Quit trying to force your prong of magical thinking in where it has no place.
As long as the professor keeps his creationism beliefs to himself and teaches biology and evolutionary theory like he's supposed to, then there's no problem. But the moment he gets the idea to "teach the controversy" he should be out on his ass. College is a place for learning, not superstition. Or, at the very least, he should support his arguments with actual evidence , not "because the bible says so." If he can't do that, and no creationists can, then he should keep creationism out of the classroom.
"Many if not all Ivy League schools started out as Christian seminaries. How many of them now have creationists in their science faculties?"
Because science has not advanced at all in the past 200 years.
Secular colleges are full of teachers who believe in Biblical accounts in general, allegorical ways. I would venture to say that there a lot more people now in all walks of life who believe in Biblical literalness than when I was a kid in the late '50s. Such people used to be exclusively backwoods hicks, and were laughed at.
"science and wearing pants"
Sorry, but in my beliefs, wearing pants is incompatible with everything, especially science. Free your legs from their Devil-forged prisons!
A creationist would be hard pushed to become a lecturer in a scientific field, or a fellow in science, at a university, because, to do so, they would need to show proof of their academic rigour. They would need to demonstrate the prowess and capability to undertake scientific research seriously. So, they'd be required to follow the scientific method enabling them to analyse evidence with an unbiased lens; they cannot form predetermined conclusions. As creationism doesn't follow the scientific method and shows no respect for the unbiased, detailed, precise, and careful, steps necessary for scientists, it means that an open creationist would find it hard to conceal their true intentions.
Creationism isn't accepted in science because it has no evidence for it and has been rejected by all honest practitioners of science. It's unsubstantiated, superstitious woo. You, on the other hand, reject evolution because it damages the literal account of your favoured religious fable. Inflexible respect to a contradictory, vague account that is supposedly the word of God is not scientific.
I have to wonder, though, is this about Ben Stein's "Expelled" where he claimed that a professor was fired from a major university for teaching creationism, but as it turns out he never worked there in the first place?
@ Rob...an alleged gourmet chef who insisted that everything went better with garlic and jellybeans.
Unicorn Chops
Personally I trust in good in Ol' Pasta, with noodley appendages. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
@ Zemyla & 1833950
I put my pants on just like everybody else;
what would you say if a secular college refused to even hire a prof who believed in the Genesis account
Is he a biology professor? Then I'd say "good". Is he teaching any other science that requires disagreement with the Genesis creation account (i.e. astronomy). I wouldn't care as long as he didn't start preaching in class. Is he teaching a subject not even remotely related to science (i.e. English)? Then in that case the college is just as stupid as his beliefs are.
<Galileo, Newton, Bacon, Kepler, etc. In the latter case the Dutch Reformed Church gave Kepler funding for his astronomical research. Each one had a firm grip on science without ever embracing evolution.>
I assume that by Bacon, you are referring to John Mackenzie Bacon, the astronomer?
Odd how none of your examples of scientists who don't embrace evolution are known primarily for their contributions to the field of Biology, where an embrace of evolution would be required.
..Oh, wait. It's not odd at all. If you had actual evidence that supported your claim, you would have produced it years ago.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
